Is this advice sound?
"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded." (“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)
It's not advice. It's an unevidenced claim. Comments like,
This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded" have no meaning. You don't seem to be able to see that these proclamations are essentially fortune cookie fortunes without the cookie.
Let me offer you some alternate advice, just as opaque and useless: Unity can never be achieved until we all telepathically petition to Raël to focus the yin and yan of his inner eye on our chakras, and astrally project our aura to the ninth cloud of Kolob. This is the only way the world will find unity. Amen.
So that to me is the core values found in all God given Faiths, and yes Atheists can also embrace those values.
The secular humanists are way ahead of you, probably because they aren't weighed down in faith and religion. No religion can equal the values of humanism in terms of promoting love, acceptance, and unity. Do you think you can embrace humanist values? Reason would help you to rid yourself of the contempt you have for atheists. I realize that you think your patronization of and condescension to secular humanists is love, but it's not.
The claim that the God that Baha'is believe in exists has supporting evidence and it is based upon a rational argument.
No, it doesn't, but then it's been established that you don't know what constitutes supporting evidence for an idea.
But there is evidence. You simply saying "Messengers are not evidence for God" does not make it so.
No, there is no such evidence, just people claiming otherwise. How do I know? First, I would know that alleged messengers of God were that without anybody needing to tell me if their words were clearly words that no man could have written, and their lives lives that no man could have lived without divine intervention.
Second, when asked to present this evidence, they provide nothing that suggests a God exists to an experienced critical thinker. That is what you have done repeatedly.
I never said what He claimed is factual, as God claims can never be factual since they can never be proven, but that does not mean that they are not true.
This is confirmation that you don't understand what evidence is and does.
I have posted the evidence for Baha'u'llah on this forum over and over again on numerous threads.
No you haven't. You may think otherwise, but the skilled critical thinker will tell you whether what you presented supports your claims for it. I realize that you don't really know what critical thinking is, what it can do, or recognize it. I also understand that from that perspective, all ideas are just opinions, and none can be called facts. I also know from experience that when you are told this - that there are people who can know things and know that they are correct (and they are not the theists claiming to know a God exists), and know that competing ideas are incorrect, that you bristle and call that arrogance. But it doesn't change the fact that there are people, whether you know it or not, who can know that you have no arguments and that your claims are empty and contradictory.
How do you think objective scrutiny would operate to determine if a religious belief is true?
We determine what is true empirically by its ability to accurately predict outcomes. If your religion were demonstrably true, it would make unexpected predictions that could be confirmed. This is empiricism 101. Empiricism is the only path to demonstrable truth, and in my opinion, nothing that cannot be demonstrated to be true should be called that.
Here's a belief, albeit not religious. I believe that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. How do you think we should confirm whether that is true or not? It's pretty obvious to me. No religious belief can pass this test, therefore none should be considered correct.
I dont think vaccine does anything but usually limit the severity.
Vaccines also diminish transmissibility. Breakthrough infections generally generate a smaller viral load and for fewer days. This is what is hoped for with herd immunity - fewer people infected at any given time shedding less virus for less time, just like with flu during flu season. The unvaccinated undermine that.